Iran Denies Responsibility for Alleged Missile Attack on Diego Garcia

Iran has denied allegations of launching long-range missiles at the joint US-UK military base on Diego Garcia, dismissing the claims as an “Israeli false flag” operation amid escalating tensions in the Middle East.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei strongly rejected the accusations on Monday, characterizing them as part of a deliberate disinformation campaign. His statement came after NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte acknowledged that the alliance could not confirm Israel’s claim that Iran had fired intercontinental ballistic missiles at the strategic Indian Ocean base.

“That even the NATO Secretary General declines to endorse Israel’s most recent disinformation speaks volumes,” Baghaei wrote on social media platform X. “The world has grown thoroughly exhausted with these tired and discredited ‘false flag’ storylines.”

The controversy emerged after U.S. media outlets, including The Wall Street Journal, reported that missiles had been launched toward Diego Garcia between Thursday night and Friday morning but failed to hit their target. The reports suggested the missiles were fired from Iranian territory.

UK Defense Secretary John Healey confirmed to Parliament on Monday that two Iranian missiles had been launched in the direction of Diego Garcia, though he stated that “one fell short of its target, and the other was brought down short of its target.”

“Neither got close to Diego Garcia. The UK was not required to take action, and normal operations continue,” Healey added, while nonetheless condemning the alleged attack and urging Iran to “de-escalate.”

The Diego Garcia base, located approximately 4,000 kilometers from Iran, hosts nearly 2,500 military personnel, primarily American, and has served as a critical launching point for U.S. military operations across multiple conflicts, from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as recent strikes against Houthi forces in Yemen.

If confirmed, such an attack would represent a significant escalation in Iran’s military capabilities, demonstrating missile technology with a range of 4,000 kilometers or more—potentially putting targets as distant as London within reach. This would directly contradict recent statements by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who told NBC earlier this month that Iran had “intentionally limited ourselves to below 2,000km of range because we don’t want to be felt as a threat by anybody else in the world.”

British Housing Secretary Steve Reed attempted to reassure the British public on Sunday, stating the UK had “no indication that Iran intended to—or could, even if it wanted to—reach the country with its missiles.”

Israel’s military chief, Eyal Zamir, has maintained that Iran deployed “a two-stage intercontinental ballistic missile with a range of 4,000km” in the alleged attack. Israel has long characterized Iran’s missile and nuclear programs as existential threats and has consistently advocated for U.S. military intervention against Tehran.

The allegations come during a period of heightened regional tension following a joint U.S.-Israeli strike against Iran approximately three weeks ago that resulted in the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. That strike occurred despite ongoing diplomatic efforts, with Oman—serving as a mediator in talks between Washington and Tehran—having indicated that a negotiated agreement had been “within reach.”

The conflicting narratives surrounding the alleged missile attack highlight the complex geopolitical dynamics at play in the region, with different stakeholders offering contradictory assessments of Iran’s military capabilities and intentions. While Western powers and Israel continue to express concern about Iran’s missile program, Tehran maintains that its military developments are defensive in nature and limited in scope.

The Diego Garcia incident, whether confirmed or disproven, underscores the volatile nature of Middle Eastern security and the potential for miscalculation in an increasingly militarized environment.